JUDGMENT V.N. Misra, J. - This is an application in revision by Jagta against the judgment and order dated 31.7.1981 passed by Sri. R.P. Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahar, in Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 1980 by means of which he confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed on the applicant under sections 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 2. Very briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 22.8.1978, at about 8-30 A.M. in the morning Sri K. P. Batish, Food Inspector, went to Mohalla Makdoomganj in Khurja and found the applicant selling milk and carrying milk for sale. The applicant had no licence to sell milk. The Food Inspector, therefore, disclosed his indentity, gave notice on Form VI and purchased 750 ml of milk for Rs. 1.50. This was sealed in three clean bottles and one of these when sent to the Public Analyst was found deficient in non fatty solids by 17%. Sanction was, therefore, obtained to prosecute him and complaint was filed against applicant in which he has been convicted as aforesaid. 3. The first point raised in this revision was that the mandatory pro- ^ visions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act had not been complied with in this case, because no proper intimation was sent to the applicant. On the report of the Public Analyst being received a copy of the letter sent to the applicant was proved as Ext. Ka 9 and this was most certainly a very proper intimation in which the applicant was told that with ten days of receipt of this intimation he may apply to the Magistrate concerned to get the sample sent to the Director, Central Food Laboratory for re-analysis. Thus, section 13(2) of the Act was complied with and a proper intimation was sent to the applicant. 4. It was then contended that the analysis of the milk as made by the Public Analyst was not reliable because the Public Analyst found that there was no deficiency in fat contents but the non-fatty solids were deficient by 17% and in support of his contention the learned counsel cited Puran Singh v. State of U. P. 1978(1) FAC 160. In the case before the Division Bench the fat contents in the milk were found very much above the prescribed limit while the non-fatty solids only 1.9% and were virtually non-existent. In the case before the Division Bench the fat contents in the milk were found very much above the prescribed limit while the non-fatty solids only 1.9% and were virtually non-existent. For this reason their lordships held that the report of the Public Analyst was not reliable. It was also^ k said in this case that there was no known method, by which non-fatty solids in milk can be reduced without disturbing the fat contents. There can be no difficulty in accepting what was decided in this ruling as correct, but if water is mixed to milk the percentage of non-fatty solids in it would necessarily fall. It is true that the fat contents would also fall but if the milk is not stirred for sometime and is kept the fat contents would come up and if sample is taken from the top it would be found very high in fat contents. Since the non-fatty solids had to conform to a certain standard and were deficient by 17% therefore there can be no doubt that this milk was adulterated. 5. would, therefore, dismiss this revision as being without merits. The conviction and sentence of the applicant are maintained. The applicant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out his sentence. Stay order dated 11.8.1981 is discharged.